Direct Project Compliance - Call for Consensus
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Implementation Group Call for Consensus: Direct Project Compliance document
DUE: 3/28/11
Consensus voting on: Direct Project Compliance
| Organization |
Endorsement (Yes or No) |
Comments (If "No," what can be changed to make it a "Yes") |
Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABILITY (formerly VisionShare) |
Yes |
||
| Alere |
|||
| Allscripts |
Yes |
||
| American Academy of Family Physicians |
|||
| Atlas Development |
|||
| Avisena Inc. |
Yes |
||
| Axolotl |
|||
| CareEvolution, Inc. |
|||
| CareSpark |
|||
| Cautious Patient |
|||
| Cerner Corporation |
Yes |
||
| Christus Health |
|||
| Clinical Groupware Collaborative |
Yes |
||
| CMS |
|||
| Covisint |
|||
| CSC |
|||
| DoD |
|||
| eClinicalWorks |
|||
| Emdeon |
|||
| Epic |
|||
| FEI |
|||
| Health-ISP, a service of Garden State Health Systems |
Yes |
||
| GE |
Yes |
As an informative specification this is useful. I have always had a problem calling this a compliance document, as the compliance document is the applicability statement. This is a guidance toward compliance. Or a guidance on deployment models toward compliance. |
|
| Google |
|||
| Greenway Medical Technologies |
|||
| Harris Corporation |
Yes |
||
| High Pine Associates |
|||
| HLN Consulting, LLC |
Yes |
||
| IBM |
|||
| ICA |
|||
| Indiana State Department of Health |
|||
| Inpriva |
|||
| Intel |
|||
| Kryptiq |
|||
| LabCorp |
|||
| Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative |
|||
| MedAllies |
No |
I think the backstop seems to be the spec that uses the SMTP backbone, etc. The enabling technology stuff is great and necessary, but this one sentence seems to have a circular reference that i think negates the enabling technologies stuff. Therefore I propose the following edit: "Similarly, when evaluating enabling technology, the simplest test to demonstrate Direct Project compliance is that the technology enables, for the users or other endpoints served by the technology, Direct Project-compliant transmission to and from other Direct Project-compliant addresses that are themselves served by technology implemented according to the Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport' ." This might seem to rule out a network comprised entirely of enabling technology, but I think that a test of compliance would necessarily enjoin a some node that is accessible according to the referenced applicability statement. The ability to transact in a compliant manner (not actual end-to-end homogeneity in a given deployment) is what is being tested. |
|
| MEDfx |
Yes |
||
| Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc./ NoMoreClipboard.com |
|||
| Medical University of SC, South Carolina Research Authority |
|||
| Medicity |
|||
| MedNet |
|||
| MedPATH Networks |
|||
| MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics |
Yes |
||
| Microsoft |
|||
| Mirth Corporation |
Yes |
||
| Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS) |
|||
| MobileMD |
|||
| NextGen Healthcare Information Systems, Inc. |
|||
| NIH NCI |
|||
| NIST |
|||
| NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene’s PCIP |
|||
| Oregon HIE Planning Team |
Yes |
||
| Redwood MedNet |
|||
| RelayHealth |
|||
| Rhode Island Quality Institute |
Yes |
Agree with the MedAllies/Siemens caveats |
|
| SAFE-BioPharma |
|||
| SCHIEx - South Carolina Health Information Exchange |
|||
| Secure Exchange Solutions |
|||
| Serendipity Health, LLC |
Yes |
||
| Siemens |
Yes with comment |
I agree w. the spirit of the document that the proof is in the pudding (sending from any Direct-compliant address to any other, whether through the pure Applicability Statement or through "enabling technology"). But I also get the point raised by MedAllies about what appears to be a "circular reference" that defines "Direct compliance" in terms of itself. So I am OK with MedAllies' proposed wording change, or a shorter version thereof. |
|
| Surescripts |
|||
| Techsant Technologies |
Yes |
||
| TN State HIE |
|||
| VA |
Yes |
||
| Verizon Business |
Documentation and Testing Consensus Results Below
DO NOT MODIFY THIS TABLE -- For Reference Only
| Workgroup Participant Organization |
Endorsement (Yes or No) |
Comments (If "No," what can be changed to make it a "Yes") |
|---|---|---|
| ABILITY (formerly VisionShare) |
Yes |
|
| Akira Technologies, Inc. |
||
| Alere |
||
| Allscripts |
Yes |
with recommendation that we remove the phrase "that do not use Direct Project-compliant means for all local community exchange" |
| American Academy of Family Physicians |
||
| Atlas Development |
||
| Axolotl |
||
| CareSpark/Serendipity Health |
||
| Cautious Patient |
||
| Cerner |
||
| Christus Health |
||
| Clinical Groupware Collaborative |
||
| CMS |
||
| Covisint |
||
| CSC |
||
| DoD |
||
| eClinicalWorks |
||
| Emdeon |
||
| Epic |
Yes |
With suggestion that we remove first person voice ("When I call you") |
| FEI |
||
| Garden State Health Systems |
Yes |
|
| GE |
||
| Google |
||
| Greenway Medical Technologies |
||
| Harris Corporation |
||
| Healthcare Information Xchange of NY |
||
| High Pine Associates |
||
| HLN Consulting, LLC |
||
| IBM |
||
| ICA |
||
| Inpriva |
||
| Intel |
||
| Kryptiq |
||
| Labcorp |
||
| Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative |
||
| MedAllies |
||
| Medical University of SC, South Carolina Research |
||
| Medical Informatics Engineering, (MIE) |
||
| Medicity |
||
| MedNET |
||
| MedPATH Networks |
||
| MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics |
||
| Microsoft |
||
| Mirth Corporation |
||
| Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS) |
||
| NextGen Healthcare |
||
| NIH NCI |
||
| NIST |
||
| NoMoreClipboard.com |
||
| NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene's PCIP |
||
| Oracle Health Sciences Global Strategies |
||
| Oregon HIE Planning Team |
||
| Redwood MedNet |
||
| RelayHealth |
||
| Rhode Island Quality Institute |
||
| Secure Exchange Solutions |
||
| Siemens |
Yes |
|
| SureScripts |
||
| Techsant Technologies |
Yes |
|
| TN State HIE |
||
| VA |
||
| Others: |
||